Public Interest versus Property Rights

A recent article from Godfather Politics illustrated that the federal government was acquiring land at an accelerated pace.

The Federal Government owns millions of acres, most of it in western states and Alaska. Here’s the breakdown:

1. Nevada : 84.5%
2. Alaska: 69.1%
3. Utah: 57.4%
4. Oregon: 53.1%
5. Idaho: 50.2%
6. Arizona: 48.1%
7. California: 45.3%
8. Wyoming: 42.3%
9. New Mexico: 41.8%
10. Colorado: 36.6%

If this weren’t enough, plans have been in the making for even more land to be designated as federal land. Here’s part of a report from Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican, who is chairman of the U.S. Senate Steering Committee. To my chagrin, I have not known about this:

A secret administration memo has surfaced revealing plans for the federal government to seize more than 10 million acres from Montana to New Mexico, halting job-creating activities like ranching, forestry, mining and energy development. Worse, this land grab would dry up tax revenue that’s essential for funding schools, firehouses and community centers.

President Obama could enact the plans in this memo with just the stroke of a pen, without any input from the communities affected by it.

Administration officials claim the document is merely the product of a brainstorming session, but anyone who reads this memo can see that it is a wish list for the environmentalist left. It discusses, in detail, what kinds of animal populations would benefit from limiting human activity in those areas.

The 21-page document, marked “Internal Draft-NOT FOR RELEASE,” names 14 different lands Mr. Obama could completely close for development by unilaterally designating them as “monuments” under the 1906 Antiquities Act.

This is a story that hasn’t gotten much attention. I suspect that it hasn’t been acted on because the president is in a tough election fight. If he gets re-elected, a real possibility, don’t be surprised if more of America comes under the control of the federal government.

To show you what we’re up against, DeMint sponsored an amendment to block Mr. Obama from declaring any of the 14 lands listed in the memo as “monuments.” The Senate, because it is a Democrat majority, rejected it by a vote of 58–38. This means that some Republicans voted with the Democrats.

Read more: Federal Land Grab in the Works | Godfather Politics http://godfatherpolitics.com/2399/federal-land-grab-in-the-works/#ixzz1fV1NauDd

December 2, 2011

The government’s justification for the land grab is that it “serves the public interest” to do so. Related to the tension between big government and individual liberty is the public interest versus private property conflict. Similar to the economic dynamic of taxation (government’s swallowing of financial resources hinders private capital formation and development), when government absorbs land—a finite commodity, the private sector access is either severely curtailed or totally eliminated. The land, its mineral rights and the local tax potential are removed from the gross economic activity of the locality and the nation. From an economic perspective….the fruit and bounty of the land ceases to exist. It may even generate a negative productivity in the sense that tax dollars may be necessary to maintain the property and provide security. So in most cases the property becomes a public obligation rather than a contributing component for the national prosperity.  

In my view it is immoral for a government to own land beyond the absolute minimal amount needed for vital constitutionally-ordained functions. Even within those strict parameters, an overreaching government will be tempted to have too-large military bases, expansive and ornate buildings and post offices, and excessive space surrounding its venues. The mindless system called government always seeks to broaden its power through any means available, and title to real property is a method for limiting citizens’ power and increasing government’s. If one controls the means of production, one can direct the quantity, quality and value of the product. In essence, when government controls the land and the resources upon it and below it, the opportunities for private development are severely restricted.

Serfs work the land and keep a portion of the productive value. Slaves work the land and rely on the largesse and generosity of the master for sustenance. Neither position is consistent with a truly free republic. To allow government to create serfdom or to enslave the people is the antithesis of the Founders’ and Framers’ intent. One should review the constitutional debates for insight into how our early leaders viewed slavery and servitude as loathsome and undesirable. They considered private property as the anchor of personal liberty. They believed that individual freedom was contingent on the right to acquire and possess private property. That right…that critical element of liberty…is jeopardized when government with its vast array of resources and force competes with the citizens for ownership of property. Freedom is at risk when government employs force to require property-owning citizens to utilize their property in ways that are acceptable to the government. The titles may reflect individual ownership, but the control belongs to the State. In effect the citizens are serfs. Liberty is undermined and the Republic is in peril.

Puddles are NOT wetlands. Snail darters are not vital for the survival of the nation. Potential Pfizer offices in Connecticut do not justify the seizure of private homes for community development. Creating National Wilderness Monuments with the stroke of a pen and isolating millions of acres from private ownership is not in the public interest because the public interest includes liberty, potential, opportunity and prosperity for the citizens of the nation. Today is not 1889 but it seems that something like the Oklahoma Land Rush would be in order. A free people have property rights. A despotic government limits and denies those rights. A freedom movement will reclaim those rights.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Tuesday, 6-7:00pm, 1370 WSPD, Toledo  www.wspd.com

    

Ownership Issues

So you work, day in and day out, and manage to set aside some property to generate an income for you and your loved during your golden years. Along comes the local government which increases the taxes on your property. The local political leaders come again and tell you that certain activities are forbidden on your property. Another local government decides to run a new sidewalk and sewer line across your property thereby presenting you with an invoice for $17,500.00. You had a mortgage on the property. You made timely payments for twenty years, yet your rights to your property are limited and usurped by the whims of local governments and other property owners. So, who owns YOUR property?

In addition to its better known prohibition against forcing one to testify against one’s own interests, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States clearly states “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The Framers generally agreed that a citizen owned his or her life, her or his own labor, and his or her property. They understood that true freedom was a pipe dream if people could not hold and control those three fundamental elements. It is obvious that freedom has no value if your life can be forfeited at any time. Likewise, if someone or some government can force you to labor for their interests, you have become a slave. Property, the harvested fruit of your labor, must be protected from immoral and illegal “takings,” or you can be likened to a serf or share cropper.

Frederic Bastiat in his magnificent essay, The Law, writes that “a transmission of wealth imposed by force…is…a violation of property” and the law is guilty of “organizing injustice.”  As Bastiat expresses so clearly, because something is legal doesn’t necessarily make it moral or just. Laws that fail to recognize property rights are as unjust and immoral as those that would enslave us or murder us. There are those among us who believe that property does not hold the same exalted position as our lives and labor. They may argue that property should be held in common….that all people should have access to all property so that no one would hold a distinct advantage in wealth and property over others who were not so fortunate. Liberty, however, is the ability to live one’s life the way that one desires without negatively impacting the lives of others in harmful ways. The freedom to live as one desires necessarily requires access to and ownership of property to assure that the individual is truly liberated.

It may be true that every citizen may not be capable of acquiring meaningful property, but the state and his fellow citizens should not restrict his capacity to do so, and should never impair his ability to hold and manage that which he has accumulated. If, dear reader, you believe that property is a minor consideration, take a drive through the inner city and observe the homeless with their shopping carts and bundles. These are people who by normal standards have nothing, yet they cherish and cling to their property with a passion rivaled by the most venal rich person. Their property means something to them. It has value for them.  God understands the importance of property in our lives. Exodus 20:15, “you shall not steal,” (NIV) says enough. When someone steals, it is preceded by someone “has.”

When the government at any level takes or controls your property, it is theft. When another person takes your property, they are often prosecuted. Government, however, exempts itself from morality and justice by passing laws to allow theft. It’s still theft. It’s still wrong. For example, let’s imagine that you have a beautiful grove of trees in your front lawn, and your neighborhood association decided that everyone should share your trees. Each of your neighbors would stop by with a shovel in hand and take a tree. After a time you would have no more trees, and the neighborhood association would vote to compel you to buy more trees. Of course, it’s a stupid scenario…but not all that farfetched. Government steals…sometimes with the consent of the majority. It is theft, and it occurs at every level of government. I’ll save a discussion of the Estate Tax for another time, but you get the idea. It is theft.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com   or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Face Book:  www.facebook.com/pages/Earl-for-Ohio/